Power of a District Judge
Dear Sir or Madam,
Will you confirm or deny that a District Judge can deem an out of time Acknowledgement of Service to have been served in time.
Yours faithfully,
fred robinson
Dear Sir or Madam,
FOR INFORMATION I REFER YOU TO THE "EQUAL TREATMENT BENCH BOOK"
Chapter 1.3 Unrepresented parties - Key points The ‘litigant in person’ Most unrepresented parties are stressed and worried, operating in an alien environment in what for them is a foreign language.
They are trying to grasp concepts of law and procedure about which they may be totally ignorant. They may well be experiencing feelings of fear, ignorance, frustration, bewilderment and disadvantage, especially if appearing against a represented party.
The outcome of the case may have a profound effect and long-term consequences upon their life.
They may have agonised over whether the case was worth the risk to their health and finances, and therefore feel passionately about their situation.
Role of the judge
Judges and those who chair tribunals must be aware of the feelings and difficulties experienced by unrepresented parties and be ready and able to help them, especially if a represented party is being oppressive or aggressive.
Maintaining patience and an even-handed approach is also important where the unrepresented party is being oppressive or aggressive towards another party or its representative or towards the court.
The judge should, however, remain understanding so far as possible as to what might lie behind their behaviour.
Maintaining a balance between assisting and understanding what the unrepresented party requires, while protecting their represented opponent against the problems that can be caused by the unrepresented party ’s lack of legal and procedural knowledge, is the key.
1.3.1 Introduction
There are a number of reasons why individuals may choose to represent themselves rather than instruct a lawyer.
Many do not qualify for public funding, either financially or because of the nature of their case.
Some cannot afford a solicitor and even distrust lawyers.
Others believe that they will be better at putting their own case across.
This section aims to identify the difficulties faced (and caused) by litigants in person before, during and after the litigation process, and to provide guidance to judges with a view to ensuring that both parties receive a fair hearing where one or both is not represented by a lawyer.
This chapter supplements and should be read in conjunction with Chapter 1.1. Subject to the law relating to vexatious litigants, everybody of full age and capacity is entitled to be heard in person by any court or tribunal which is concerned to adjudicate in proceedings in which that person is a party.
But on the whole those who exercise this personal right find that they are operating in an alien environment.
The courts and tribunals have not traditionally been receptive to their needs.
All too often the litigant in person is regarded as a problem for judges and for the court system rather than a person for whom the system of civil justice exists.
Lord Woolf, Access to Justice, Interim Report June 1995
It is curious that lay litigants have been regarded … as problems, almost as nuisances for the court system. This has meant that the focus has generally been upon the difficulties that litigants in person pose for the courts rather than the other way around.
Prof. John Baldwin, Monitoring the Rise of the Small Claims Limit
Unrepresented parties are likely to experience feelings of fear, ignorance, anger, frustration and bewilderment.
They will feel at a profound disadvantage, despite the fact that the outcome may have a profound effect and long-term consequences on their lives.
The aim of the judge or tribunal chair should be to ensure that the parties leave with the sense that they have been listened to and had a fair hearing – whatever the outcome. In what follows, the term ‘unrepresented party’ encompasses those preparing a case for trial, those conducting their own case at trial and those wishing to enforce a judgement or to appeal.
Disadvantages faced
The disadvantages faced by unrepresented parties stem from their lack of knowledge of the law and court procedure.
For many their perception of the court environment will be based on what they have seen on the television and in films.
They tend to: be unfamiliar with the language and specialist vocabulary of legal proceedings;
have little knowledge of the procedures involved and find it difficult to apply the rules even if they do read them;
lack objectivity and emotional distance from their case;
be unskilled in advocacy and unable to undertake cross-examination or test the evidence of an opponent;
be ill-informed about the presentation of evidence;
be unable to understand the relevance of law and regulations to their own problem, or to know how to challenge a decision that they believe is wrong.
All these factors have an adverse effect on the preparation and presentation of their case.
Equally, there are other unrepresented parties who are familiar with the requirements of the process.
Numbers
Increasing numbers of people are now also representing themselves in the civil and family courts.
The small claims procedure in the county court is designed specifically to assist the public to pursue claims without recourse to legal representation and has created a huge increase in the number of unrepresented parties.
The vast majority of defended civil actions in the county court are dealt with under this procedure dure and it is a sign of its success that its jurisdiction was increased (subject to certain exceptions in personal injury cases) from claims of up to £1,000, to claims of up to £5,000.
With the consent of the parties, cases of a certain type can encompass substantially greater claims.
Public funding has never been available for small claims.
Unrepresented parties also appear with increasing frequency in the Court of Appeal in criminal, civil and family cases.
Some have represented themselves at first instance.
Others, having had lawyers appear for them in the court below, take their own cases on appeal, often through a withdrawal of public funding after the first instance hearing.
Ways to help
The aim is to ensure that unrepresented parties understand what is going on and what is expected of them at all stages of the proceedings – before, during and after any attendances at a hearing.
This means ensuring that: the process is (or has been) explained to them in a manner that they can understand; they have access to appropriate information (e.g. the rules, practice directions and guidelines – whether from publications or websites); they are informed about what is expected of them in ample time for them to comply; wherever possible they are given sufficient time according to their own needs. 1.3.2
Particular areas of difficulty
Those who are involved in legal proceedings without legal representation may face a daunting range of problems of both knowledge and understanding...
... Information
... Many unrepresented parties believe that the court staff are there to give legal advice.
Under the Courts Charter court staff can only give information on how a case may be pursued; they cannot give legal advice under any circumstances.
1.3.3 Before the court appearance
Statements of case and witness statements Unrepresented parties may make basic errors in the preparation of civil cases by:
failing to choose the best cause of action or defence; overlooking limitation periods;
not appreciating that they are witnesses in their own cases;
failing to file their own witness s statements in advance of trial (and not understanding that in consequence they may not be able to give evidence).
The individual’s level of knowledge should be taken into account in civil cases when deciding whether to make allowances for such failures.
A flexible approach ought to be adopted where possible, even if this involves an adjournment.
Some of these problems are addressed in the Protocols of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).
The Court Service has produced a new series of leaflets for unrepresented parties in the light of the CPR.
Directions and court orders
Unrepresented parties often do not understand pre-hearing directions (in particular those imposing time deadlines and ‘unless orders’) or the effect of court orders so:
ensure that they leave a directions hearing appreciating exactly what is required of them;
involve them in the process of giving those directions (e.g. asking them how much time they need to take a particular step and why) so that they realise that the directions relate to the conduct of their own case;
explain fully the precise meaning of any particular direction or court order.
Sometimes they believe that if the other side has failed to comply with such directions, that in itself is evidence in support of their own case, or the opponent should be prevented from defending or proceeding further.
They often feel upset at what they regard as an over-tolerant attitude by the courts to delays by solicitors.
Documentary evidence
A common problem is lack of understanding about the use and application of documents and bundles.
Experience shows that unrepresented parties:
tend not to make sufficient use of documentary or photographic evidence in their cases;
fail to appreciate the need for maps and plans of any location relevant to the case.
Preliminary hearings represent an opportunity to give guidance on these matters.
Disclosure of documents
The duty to disclose documents is frequently neglected by
unrepresented parties.
Some will have little or no appreciation that they should adopt a ‘cards on the table’ approach.
Consequently there can be delay, either because of the need to adjourn or because the judge or the other side requires time at the hearing to read recently disclosed documents.
When a pre-trial hearing takes place, a short clear explanation of the duty of disclosure and the test as to whether or not a document needs to be disclosed helps both parties and the court in terms of time saved.
Preparing bundles
Many unrepresented parties do not have access to office facilities and have difficulties in photocopying documents, preparing bundles and typing witness statements.
They have little concept of the need for documents to be in chronological order and paginated.
Putting the case back is often the sensible course to take, in the event of litigants coming to court with their bundles in other than proper order.
Producing documents
All too often unrepresented parties do not bring relevant documents with them to the hearing.
The court or tribunal is faced with the comment:
‘I can produce it – it is at home’, but it is then too late and an adjournment is likely to be expensive and will usually be refused.
The party should have been warned in advance not only to disclose relevant documents to the other side but to produce the originals at the hearing.
Sources of law
Most unrepresented parties do not have access to legal textbooks or libraries where such textbooks are available and may not be able to down-load information from a legal website.
Why not let an individual, accompanied by a member of the court staff, have access to the court library or to a particular book?
Sometimes unrepresented parties do not understand the role of case law and are confused by the fact that the judge or tribunal appears to be referring to someone else’s case.
A brief explanation of the doctrine of precedent will enable an unrepresented party to appreciate what is going on and why.
A re presented party’s lawyer should be told to produce any authorities to be relied on at the outset.
An unrepresented party must be given proper opportunity to read such authorities and make submissions in relation to them.
Live evidence
Judges and tribunal chairs are often told: ‘All you have to do is to ring Mr X and he will confirm what I am saying.’
When it is explained that this is not possible, unrepresented parties may become aggrieved and fail to understand that it is for them to prove their case.
They should be informed at an early stage that they must prove what they say by witness evidence so may need to approach witnesses in advance and ask them to come to court.
The need for expert evidence should also be explained and the fact that no party can call an expert witness unless permission has been given by the court, generally in advance.
When there is an application to adjourn, bear in mind that unrepresented parties may genuinely not have realised just how important the attendance of such witnesses is.
If the application is refused a clear explanation should be given.
Adjournments
Un represented parties may not appreciate the need to obtain an adjournment order if a hearing date presents them with difficulties.
It is a common misconception that it is sufficient to write to the court without consulting the other side, merely asking for the case to be put off to another date, or that no more than a day’s notice of such a request is required.
Conversely, unrepresented parties may find it difficult to understand why cases need to be adjourned if they over- run because of the way in which they or others have presented their cases, or why their cases have not started at the time at which they were listed. ..
...The hearing
The judge or chair of a tribunal is a facilitator of justice and may need to assist the unrepresented party in ways that are not appropriate for a party who has employed skilled legal advisers and an experienced advocate.
This may include:
attempting to elicit the extent of the understanding of that party at the outset and giving explanations in everyday language;
making clear in advance the difference between justice and a just trial on the evidence (i.e. that the case will be decided on the basis of the evidence presented and the truthfulness and accuracy of the witnesses called).
Explanations by the judge
Basic conventions and rules need to be stated at the start of a hearing. The judge’s name and the correct mode of address should be clarified. Individuals present need to be introduced and their roles explained... An unrepresented party who does not understand something or has a problem with any aspect of the case should be told to inform the judge immediately so that the problem can be addressed.
The purpose of the hearing and the particular matter or issue on which a decision is to be made must be clearly stated.
A party may take notes but the law forbids the making of personal tape-recordings. If the unrepresented party needs a short break for personal reasons, they only have to ask. The golden rule is that only one person may speak at a time and each side will have a full opportunity to present its case. ..
...1.1. Purpose of hearing
The purpose of a particular hearing may not be understood. For example, the hearing of an application to set aside a judgement may be thought to be one in which the full merits of the case will be argued.
The procedure following a successful application should be clearly explained, such as the need to serve the proceedings on the defendant, for a full defence to be filed and directions which may be given thereafter so that the parties know what is going to happen next.
The judge’s role It can be hard to strike a balance in assisting an unrepresented party in an adversarial system. An unrepresented party may easily get the impression that the judge does not pay sufficient attention to them or their case, especially if the other side is represented and the judge asks the advocate on the other side to summarise the issues between the parties.
Explain the judge’s role during the hearing.
If you are doing something which might be perceived to be unfair or controversial in the mind of the unrepresented party, explain precisely what you are doing and why.
Adopt to the extent necessary an inquisitorial role to enable the unrepresented party fully to present their case (but not in such a way as to appear to give the unrepresented party an undue advantage).
The real issues
Many unrepresented parties will not appreciate the real issues in the case. For example, a litigant might come to court believing that they are not liable under a contract because it is not in writing, or that they can win the case upon establishing that the defendant failed to care when the real issue in the case is whether or not the defendant’s negligence caused the loss.
At the start of any hearing it is vital to identify and if possible establish agreement as to the issues to be tried so that all parties proceed on this basis. Time spent in this way can shorten the length of proceedings considerably.
Compromise
Unrepresented parties may not know how to compromise or even that they are allowed to speak to the other side with a view to trying to reach a compromise.
Tell them, particularly in civil proceedings, that the role of the court is dispute resolution – explanations as to forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) may be appropriate.
Ask them whether they have tried to resolve their differences by negotiation and, if possible, spell out the best and worst possible outcomes at the outset.
This can lead to movement away from the idea that to negotiate is a sign of weakness.
Remind them to tell the court in advance if their case has been settled.
Advocacy
Often unrepresented parties phrase questions wrongly and some find it hard not to make a statement when they should be cross-examining.
Explain the difference between evidence and submissions, and help them put across a point in question form.
Unrepresented parties frequently have difficulty in understanding that merely because there is a different version of events to their own, this does not necessarily mean that the other side is lying.
Similarly, they may construe any suggestion from the other side that their own version is not true as an accusation of lying.
Be ready to explain that this is not automatically so.
Where one party is represented, invite this advocate to make final submissions first, so that an unrepresented party can see how it should be done.
Criminal cases Under Article 6(3) of the European Convention of Human Rights, everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to defend him or herself in person or through legal assistance of his or her own choosing or, if he or she has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free where the interests of justice so require.
Those who dispense with legal assistance do so, almost always, because they decline to accept the advice which they have been given, whether as to plea or the conduct of the trial.
A firm hand almost always persuades such defendants that they are much better advised to retain their representatives.
If this does not work the problem for the judge is to do with retaining control over the proceedings rather than sensitive explanation to the defendant of the rules of procedure and evidence.
Cross-examination
Throughout a trial a judge must be ready to assist a defendant in the conduct of their case.
This is particularly so when the defendant is examining or cross-examining witnesses and giving evidence:
always ask the defendant whether they wish to call any witnesses;
be ready to restrain unnecessary, intimidating or humiliating cross-examination;
be prepared to discuss the course of proceedings with the defendant in the absence of the jury before they embark on any cross-examination;
note the statutory prohibitions on cross-examination by an unrepresented defendant.
Conduct of the defence
Paragraph 5 of the Practice Direction Crown Court (Defendant’s Evidence) [1995] 2 Cr App R 192 puts a duty on a judge to address an unrepresented defendant at the conclusion of the evidence for the prosecution and in the presence of the jury as follows:
You have heard the evidence against you. Now is the time for you to make your defence.
You may give evidence on oath, and be cross-examined like any other witness.
If you do not give evidence or, having been sworn without good cause, refuse to answer any question, the jury may draw such inferences as appear proper.
That means they may hold it against you.
You may also call any witness or witnesses whom you have arranged to attend court.
Afterwards you may also, if you wish, address the jury by arguing your case from the dock.
But you cannot at that stage give evidence.
Do you now intend to give evidence?
Summing up
In the course of summing up a case to a jury in which the defendant is unrepresented, tell the jury that it was always open to defendants to represent themselves and that the jury should bear in mind the difficulty for defendants in properly presenting their case.
In some cases, such comments may be more appropriate at the outset.
Adjournments
Sometimes a defendant in a criminal case becomes an unrepresented party during the case either by reason of the defendant’s representatives withdrawing or because they are dismissed by the defendant.
Bear in mind that you may exercise your discretion in deciding whether or not to grant an adjournment to enable fresh legal representatives to be instructed.
That decision should be based on what is in the interests of justice having regard to the interests of the witnesses, the public and the defendant, the stage reached in the trial and the likely ability of the defendant to conduct the defence case properly.
Bear in mind also the duty to warn a defendant against any course that might not be in that defendant’s best interests, but if the defendant decides to go on alone, allow t hem to do so.
1.3.5 Assistance and representation
A party to civil or family proceedings may wish to be assisted by a ‘friend’ at a hearing or even represented by a person without rights of audience.
In a climate where legal aid is virtually unobtainable and lawyers disproportionately expensive, the McKenzie friend and lay representative make a significant contribution to access to justice.
But reported cases tend to concentrate upon reasons why they should not be allowed rather than circumstances where they may be of assistance to a party and the court.
The judge has to identify those situations where such support is beneficial and distinguish circumstances where it should not be allowed.
In addition the need for a litigation friend must be recognised and this has changed with the introduction of a new mental capacity jurisdiction (see further Chapter 5.4, section 5.4.3).
‘McKenzie friend’
This term refers to an assistant or friend (whether lawyer or not) who assists in presenting the case by taking notes, quietly making suggestions or giving advice.
The role differs from that of the advocate in that the McKenzie friend does not address the court or examine any witnesses and is generally permitted at trials or full hearings although the ‘friend’ can be excluded if unsuitable (e.g. someone who is pursuing their own or an unsuitable agenda).
It may be less appropriate to allow such assistance in private (chambers) hearings because the judge generally then provides more assistance to an unrepresented party.
A McKenzie friend may not act as the agent of the litigant in relation to the proceedings nor manage the case outside court (e.g. by signing court documents).
The Court of Appeal summarised the principles in Paragon Finance plc v Noueiri [2001] EWCA Civ 1402, [2001] 1 WLR 2357, as follows:
A McKenzie friend had no right to act as such: the only right was that of the litigant to have reasonable assistance.
A McKenzie friend was not entitled to address the court: if he did so, he would become an advocate and require the grant of a right of audience.
As a general rule, a litigant in person who wished to have a McKenzie friend should be allowed to do so unless the judge was satisfied that fairness and the interests of justice did not so require.
However, the court could prevent a McKenzie friend from continuing to act in that capacity where the assistance he gave impeded the efficient administration of justice.
See also R v Bow County Court ex p Pelling [1999] 1 WLR 1811 and Re G (Chambers proceedings: next friend) [1999] 2 FLR 59, CA.
A differently constituted Court of Appeal in Re O (Children): Re W-R (A Child): Re W (Children) [2005] EWCA Civ 759; [2005] 2 FLR 967 (Thorpe LJ, Wall LJ) has since offered this guidance in family proceedings:
There is a strong presumption in favour of a litigant in person being allowed the assistance of a McKenzie friend.
A request should not be refused without compelling reasons, even where the proceedings relate to a child and are being heard in private.
The fact that the unrepresented party appears to be capable of conducting his case does not begin to outweigh the strong presumption in favour of allowing such assistance.
The fact that a proposed McKenzie friend belongs to an organisation that promotes a particular cause is no reason for not allowing him to undertake the role.
It was not for the litigant in person to justify his desire to have a McKenzie friend but for the objecting party to rebut the presumption in favour of allowing it.
There is no justification for refusing to allow a McKenzie friend simply because it is a directions hearing.
Proposed McKenzie friends should not be excluded from the courtroom or chambers whilst the application for assistance is being made.
The proposed McKenzie friend should produce a short CV or statement about himself confirming that he has not interest in the case and understands his role and the duty of confidentiality.
In February 2005, the President of the Family Division produced guidance to judges in family proceedings and this is reproduced in the following pages.
Rights of audience The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, section 27 regulates the right to appear in court.
General rights of audience (advocacy rights) are granted to duly qualified barristers or solicitors (and certain others) and employees of solicitors may appear at hearings in ‘private’.
In addition: the court may refuse to hear a person (for reasons which relate to him as an individual) who would otherwise have a right of audience but must give reasons;
a court has discretionary power to grant an unqualified person a right of audience in relation to particular proceedings before that court;
a special provision is made for lay representatives in the small claims track of the county court.
There is a right of audience in the presence of the party at the hearing itself but the court may in its discretion hear a lay representative in the absence of the party – Civil Procedure Rules 1998, PD27 para. 3.2;
Lay Representatives (Right of Audience) Order 1999.
Lay representative
The term ‘lay representative’ relates to a person who does not possess advocacy rights and may not even be a lawyer, but to whom the court grants a right of audience on behalf of a party in relation to the proceedings before that court.
The party must apply at the outset of a hearing if he wishes an unqualified individual to be granted a right of audience, and parties cannot consent to an unqualified person exercising a right of audience – Clarkson v Gilbert [2002] 2 FLR 839 (CA);
D v S (Rights of Audience) [1997] 2 FCR 206; [1997] 1 FLR 724 (CA).
It may, however, be appropriate to grant a right of audience on a one-off basis (e.g. where a party is inform and cannot afford the services of a lawyer).
The following guidance was offered by Lord Woolf in Clarkson v Gilbert & ors (see above):
“Now that legal aid was not available as readily as it had been in the past, there were going to be situations where litigants were forces to bring proceedings in person where they would need assistance. ... litigants in person had to indicate why they needed some other person who was not qualified to act on their behalf. ... it would be for them to satisfy the court that it was appropriate. If somebody’s health did not, or might no enable them to conduct proceedings themselves, and if they lacked means, those were the sort of circumstances that could justify a court saying that they should have somebody who could act as an advocate on their behalf. ... the objections to someone setting themselves up as an unqualified advocate did not exist where a husband was merely seeking to assist his wife.
” But the party should still be present unless there is a justifiable reason for absence. It may even in some circumstances be helpful to a court or tribunal to recognise the representative as Neuberger J. pointed out in Izzo v Philip Ross & Co (2001) The Times, 9 August 2001:
“In some circumstances common sense and experience suggests that a relatively inarticulate and unknowledgeable litigant prompted at every turn results in the case taking far longer than if the friend speaks directly for him. Every time the court raises a point or puts a point to the litigant in person it has to be explained to the litigant which often takes longer than explaining it to his friend. Then the litigant has to have the answer explained to him by the friend, where after the litigant passes the answer to the court. This is a process which self-evidently prolongs the hearings and, like chinese whispers, is fraught with potential misunderstanding.”
Once the privilege has been granted it is difficult to withdraw it even if the representative turns out to be unsuitable.
Problems arise where an unqualified person is seeking to provide general advocacy services, or appears to be pursuing a separate agenda.
In Paragon Finance plc v Noueiri (see above) the Court of Appeal offered guidance:
The discretion to grant rights of audience to individuals who did not meet the stringent requirements of the 1990 Act were only to be exercises in exceptional circumstances and after careful consideration.
The courts had to consider carefully whether to grant rights to individuals who made a practice of seeking to represent otherwise unrepresented litigants.
The person to be represented should normally justify the request and be present at the hearing when personal interests are involved.
Conducting litigation
There is a distinction between the conduct of litigation on behalf of a party and advocacy at hearings.
The former relates to the claim form, statement of case and any applications made during the course of the hearing.
A ‘statement of truth’ will generally be required to support such documents and must be signed by the party (or litigation friend) or the legal representative – CPR r.22.1(6)(a).
Special provision is made in respect of companies – see PD 22 para 3 and r.39.6.
The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, section 28 regulates the right to conduct litigations.
In Paragon Finance plc v Noueiri (see above) the Court of Appeal also offered the following guidance as to right of an unqualified person to conduct litigation in the courts on behalf of a party:
the existence of such right is determined solely in accordance with Part II of the 1990 Act; section 28(2)(c) permits a court to grant an otherwise unqualified person the right to conduct litigation in relation to particular proceedings and to remove that right if it is being abused;
the grant of the right should be carried out having regard to the same considerations as the grant of a right of audience.
Attorneys The court controls its own procedures and principles for agency do not apply, so a power of attorney cannot confer a right to conduct litigation or of audience – Gregory v Turner, R (on application of Morris) v North Somerset Council [2003] EWCA Civ 183; [2003] 1 WLR 1149 (CA).
Official Solicitor
The Official Solicitor represents parties prior to proceedings who are without capacity, deceased or unascertained when no other suitable person or agency is able and willing to do so.
The purpose is to prevent a possible denial of justice and safeguard the welfare, property or status of the party.
He usually becomes formally involved when appointed by the Court, and may act as his own solicitor, or instruct a private firm of solicitors to act for him.
The vision statement of the Official Solicitor’s Office is: “...
to be an organisation delivering high quality customer focused legal services for vulnerable persons, where those services need to be provided by the public sector ...
” Enquiries are frequently made by the judiciary and members of the legal profession and the Official Solicitor can be contacted at: 81 Chancery Lane London WC2A 1DD DX 141150 London/Chancery Lane WC2 Tel.: 020 7911 7127 Fax.: 020 7911 7105 Email: [email address] Website: www.offsol.demon.co.uk
Representing adults who lack capacity
An order directing the Official Solicitor to act as a legal representative in a civil court for an incapacitated party will either be made with his prior consent or only take effect if his consent is obtained.
The Official Solicitor needs to be satisfied that his involvement will be consistent with the Vision Statement and in appropriate cases he will also require security that his charges and expenses will be met before agreeing to act.
Assisting the civil courts
The Official Solicitor may also be called on to give confidential advice to judges, to instruct counsel to appear before a judge to assist the court as advocate to the court, or to investigate any matter on which the court needs a special report...
...Personal Support Unit & Citizens’ Advice Bureau
Litigants in person should also be aware of the services provided by local Personal Support Units and Citizen’s Advice Bureaux. The PSU at the Royal Courts of Justice in London can be contacted on 020 7947 7701, by email at [email address] or at the enquiry desk.
The CAB at the Royal Courts of Justice in London can be contacted on 020 7947 6880 or at the enquiry desk. 1.3.6
After the hearing
Having won or lost the case, the unrepresented party will need to understand what has happened and the options available or steps that can still be taken.
Explaining the decision
Unrepresented parties often do not understand the outcome of the case and the reasons for it.
The following guidance is particularly important, therefore, if they have lost.
Always set out clearly the reasons for the decision.
If possible, provide an unrepresented party with a copy of the order before leaving the court.
If judgement is reserved, or the order is to be sent on, tell the unrepresented party approximately when they can expect to hear further from the court and why there may be a delay.
Costs
Unrepresented parties are frequently unaware that they may recover costs, either from public funds in criminal matters or from the losing side in civil cases.
If such party is entitled to costs but says nothing, consider drawing the question of costs to their attention, without offering advice, so that any relevant costs application can be made.
If an application is made that an unrepresented party pays the costs, an explanation must be given with an opportunity to argue against this.
Appeal
Unless the unrepresented party has been wholly successful in the case, explain the requirement to seek leave to appeal, if applicable. Tell the unrepresented party to consider their rights of appeal, but explain that the court cannot give any advice as to the exercise of those rights.
Enforcement
An unrepresented party may be wholly unaware of the fact that although a civil judgement has been secured, it still has to be enforced.
It is important, therefore: to explain this in general terms at the end of the case and to make it clear that the court cannot advise on enforcement, but that leaflets are available at the court office; to explain the alternatives and that, short of giving advice, the court staff are always willing to try to help on matters of enforcement.
I HOPE THIS ASSISTS
Yours sincerely,
fred robinson
Dear Sir or Madam,
I REFER YOU TO CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN JULY 5TH 2006 AND JULY 12TH 2007.
ON JULY 5TH 2006 I WROTE AND FILED AT COURT A LETTER TO THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER ENTITLED “REPORT OF FALSIFIED LAND RECORDS.” DETAILING WITH COPIES, HOW THE MAPPING OF THE LAND SOLD TO MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION AS KEPLER STREET SEAFORTH, HAD BEEN CONVEYED AND REGISTERED USING FORGED MAPPING.
ON JULY 11TH 2006 THE COURT WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:
“District Judge Fitzgerald has asked me to write to you and acknowledge receipt of the document that you filed on 5th July 2006, i.e. Report of Falsified Land Records and a letter from the Information Commission dated 25th November 2003.”
SHAYNE BROWN, FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACKNOWLEDGED MY REPORT ON JULY 12TH 2006 STATING:
“Thank you for your letter regarding the Report of Falsified Records…the Department for Communities and Local Government has considered your letter but unfortunately it does not have responsibility for the issue raised. However, we have forwarded your letter today to the Department of Constitutional Affairs.”
I FILED THIS LETTER AT COURT
ON JULY 17TH 2006 I FILED AND SERVED ON MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION AND SEFTON COUNCIL A “CRIME REPORT” TO MERSEYSIDE POLICE REGARDING THE FORGED MAPPING USED TO REGISTER THE LAND AT KEPLER STREET SEAFORTH, AND COPIED IT TO THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER, MR PRESCOTT FOR FORWARDING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSTITUIONAL AFFAIRS.
ON JULY 24TH 2006, MS FOX, THE LAND REGISTRIES ASSISTANT TO LAWYERS FROM LONDON, WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:
“Your complaint has been forwarded to the Land Registry by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as the matter falls within its remit.”
ON JULY 27TH I WROTE TO SHAYNE BROWN AT THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SENDING HIM MORE EVIDENCE.
ON AUGUST 4TH 2006, MRS WEAVER FROM THE LAND REGISTRIES COVENTRY OFFICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING MY “LETTER TO THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER” STATING:
“My understanding from your letter…is that there has been some fraudulent alteration of one or more of the title plans and that the Land Registry has conspired to make these alterations…some background…may prove useful. The boundary that you are querying is between your property, number 19, and what was formally number 21 Lime Grove. Number 21 was purchased by The Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Crosby on 2 September 1960…the application for registration of the Council was lodged on 10 August 1964…it was included in title LA45086. It was included in that title from that time until it was sold again…to Maritime Housing Association on 24th December 1993. At that time it was removed from title LA45086 and registered under title MS351603.”
THIS STATEMENT NEGATES THE TWO FILED PLANS OF TWO TITLES FILED AS MS351603 THAT HAD BEEN TAKEN FROM TITLES LA45086 AND LA45343 IN MARCH AND APRIL 1977.
ON AUGUST 17TH 2006 I FILED AT COURT THE FORGED MAPPING OF THE LAND SOLD AT KEPLER STREET AND COPIED TO:
SEFTON MBC
MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION
THE LAND REGISTRY BIRKENHEAD
THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER
WILLIAM ELSBY, SOLICITOR FOR FAWLEY CONSTRUCTION
AND ASKED JUDGE FITZGERALD THE FOLLOWING QUESTION:
“The party boundary structure ‘the nib wall’ was, was according to you demolished between March and September 1994, from the above, how do you determine this.”
ON AUGUST 16TH 2006, MR WILLIAMS, SEFTON COUNCILS TECHNICAL SERVICES DIRECTOR, WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:
“I can confirm that the Council will not have provided any information which contributed to the production of the Ordnance Survey plan referred to, nor any other Ordnance Survey plan.”
ON AUGUST 17TH 2006, MR JOHN POWELL, FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMNET WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:
“Thank you for your letter of 21 July with enclosures copied to this Department about structural defects regarding your property. I am sorry to read about the problems you are currently experiencing and appreciate this must be a difficult situation for you. Unfortunately, this Department cannot get involved in individual cases or questions of possible court decisions. I would suggest that you continue to seek legal advice.”
ON AUGUST 17TH 2006, MS ELWOOD, SEFTON COUNCILS LEGAL DIRECTOR, WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:
“The Council is unable to confirm any detail in relation to the party boundary structure “the nib” as requested…Mr George Barr, the property manager referred to in Maritime Housing Association Limited’s letter of March 4th 1999, is now deceased and therefore I am unable to take this matter any further.”
ON AUGUST 21st 2006, MR JOHN POWELL, FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMNET WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:
“Thank you for your letter, received on 15 August, about difficulties encountered with the boundary wall of your property. This has been passed to this Department because of our responsibility for housing…this Department has no power to intervene in private property disputes of this nature…planning functions, such as formulating development plan policies, determining planning applications and enforcing planning control are best carried out by the democratically elected district and, in certain cases, county councils…if you are unhappy with the conduct of the local authority, you may wish to complain via their own complaints procedure. If you are not satisfied…you might wish to take your case to the Local government Ombudsman can investigate whether there has been maladministration.”
ON AUGUST 21ST 2006. MR IAN FLOWERS OF THE LAND REGISTRIES LONDON OFFICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:
“The Department of Constitutional Affairs (DCA) has referred your copy letter of 17 July to this office. However, I regret that the issues you have raised do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Land Registry. I will send a copy of this letter to the DCA for their reference.”
ON AUGUST 30th 2006, MR JOHN POWELL, FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENET WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:
“Thank you for your further letter of 25 August with enclosures about maps affecting your property…this Department cannot get involved with private property disputes. I would suggest that you seek legal advice in order to resolve this matter.”
ON AUGUST 31ST 2006, MS ELWOOD, SEFTON COUNCILS LEGAL DIRECTOR, SENT ME A TERRIER MAP, REFERENCE LA076317 2005, PREPARED BY THE COUNCILS ON SEPTEMBER 4TH 2006 AND WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING LAND, DONATED TO ME IN APRIL 1994 BY MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION, (BUT SUBSEQUENTLY FENCED OFF ALONG MY GABLE WALL AFTER THE PLANNING APPLICATION STAGE OF THE DEVELOPMENT – ON THE WRITTEN INSTRUCTION OF THE COUNCIL) WHICH IS NOT SHOWN ON THE TERRIER MAP:
“I thank you for your letter 31st August 2006 in which you sought information regarding a 1 metre strip of land. I am enclosing a plan from which you can clearly be seen the area in which you are interested.”
ON SEPTEMBER 4TH 2006 MR WILLIAMS, SEFTONS TECHNICAL SERVICES DIRECTOR WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:
“I refer to your letter of 21st August 2006 and would advise that I will not enter into any further correspondence in the matters raised in this letter.”
ON SEPTEMBER 8TH 2006 I WROTE, AND FILED AND SERVED A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST TO MS ELWOOD FOR INFORMATION REGARDING THE COUNCIL’S POWERS TO CHANGE THE BOUNDARIES OF MARITIMES LAND IN 1994, AND COPIED IT TO:
FAWLEY CONSTRUCTION
MARITIME HOIUSING ASSOCIATION
THE LAND REGISTRY BIRKENHEAD
ON SEPTEMBER 18TH 2006 I WROTE THE FOLLOWING IN A FOURTEEN PAGE VERY DETAILED LETTER TO MR POWEL FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMNET STATING, INTER ALIA, THE FOLLOWING FACT REGARDING THE TITLES OF THE LAND:
False Land Records
“With regard to your letter dated September 12th 2006 and the transcripts of telephone conversations with The Land Registry in Birkenhead (The Registry) which I presume you have received by recorded delivery.
As of today I do not know who owned the land registered at Kepler Street and Maple Grove Seaforth (the land MS351603) between December 24th 1993 and August 31st 1994, nor evidently do Sefton MBC (Sefton) or Maritime Housing Association (Maritime). I present the following conflicting fact which I have been given and compare them with the actual facts of the matter. I give letter references in square brackets, and where appropriate print in bold what I consider to be pertinent points. While the purpose of this letter is to highlight the matter of land ownership, it cannot be done without reference to the demolition of the party boundary structure or the supposed insurance claims made by myself. I will keep these to a minimum. What follows is only a small percentage of the events begun in 1977 or earlier.
The Information
Maritime are averred to have become the "owners" of 'the land MS351603' on December 24th 1994 by Maritime, Sefton and The Registry, Fawley Construction. On October 19th 2005 District Judge Bellamy made the following statement regarding the 'land MS352603'.
"On 6th September 2000 Mr Robinson, by virtue of a Land Registry search ascertained the Maritime Housing Association were the registered proprietors of the above land from January 1994."
The ownership by Maritime is stated by The Registry to have been triggered by the transfer document dated December 24th 1994 but, the title number MS351603 is not recorded on that document, instead, a title number is said to be awaiting designation. The title numbers of LA45343 and LA45086 are used to identify 'the land' that is sold to Maritime by Sefton…
The Titles
Title LA45086 was filed in March 1977 using OS SJ3396 dated 1969.
Title LA45343 was filed in April 1977 using section B of OS SJ3396 dated 1966. Section A of this map would show the land as it was prior to the demolition of the area of land comprising; Peach Grove, Birch Street, Alder Street, Vine Grove, Vine Street, Plum Street, Date Street and Kepler Street circa 1966.
On January 21st 1994, by virtue of the transfer documents The Registry aver that Maritime, the owners of the land from December 24th 1993, became the "registered proprietors" of the land 'greened out', i.e. outlined in green and, stated by The Registry to have been carried out on January 21st 1994 from the filed title plans of titles LA45343 and LA45086.
Title LA45086
On February 3 2006 I obtained the Property Register from The Registry. At 1 of this document it is recorded that 'the land' inter alia is:
"The freehold land shown edged in red on the plan of the above title...being...Lime Grove 1 to 27 (odd numbers) "
Numbers 1 to 27 Lime Grove are shown on OS SJ3396 dated 1966 and comprise of the terrace 1 to 19 Lime Grove, a large detached house numbered 21 Lime Grove and a further three house terrace numbered 23 to 27 Lime Grove.
The proprietary register records that on September 9th 1992.
"The land edged in green on the filed plan has been removed from this title and registered under the title number or numbers shown in green on the said plan."
This 'greening out by The Registry is recorded on Section B of OS SJ3396 dated March 1975 and the new title number is recorded as MS351603 [edged in red on the title plan] which pre dates the filed plan of March 1977 and clearly uses a different version of OS SJ3396 than the 1966 version. The registered proprietors are recorded as Sefton MBC at The Town Hall, Orial Road Bootle on May 12th 1976.
Fact
By September 25th 1992 two separate parcels of land were registered as owned by Sefton under the same 'unique' title number MS351603 - from different versions of OS SJ3396 - at two separate Council locations. These being those 'greened out' of OS SJ3396 dated 1966, and OS SJ3396 dated 1967, and both filed and recorded under the same title number on May 12th 1976.
Registration of MS351603
On February 4th 2003, The Registry sent me a filed plan of MS351603 dated August 31st 1994. This plan comprises of; the amalgamated title plans of LA45343 dated May 12 1976 and; the amalgamated title plans of LA45086 dated May 12 1976 as recorded above.
It appears that Maritime may not have filed the August 31st 1994 registration - another fact withheld from me by The Registry - and did in fact have the completed site registered to them in 'mid 1995'. The Registry refuse to disclose any detail about this registration.
I look forward to a constructive response from you, or better, someone with more authority, i.e. The Deputy Prime Minister.
ON SEPTEMBER 25TH 2006 THE ASSISTANT LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN ROSEMARY AGNEW WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE 06/C/07976/RA/DH:
“The Local Government Ombudsman has asked me to consider your complaint against Sefton Council and write to you…after checking with the Council it appears that your complaint has not yet been dealt with through the Council’s complaint procedure. So: I will send a copy of your complaint to the Council and ask the Chief Executive to put it through the Council’s own complaint procedure, to keep you informed of the progress, and to let you know the outcome.”
ON OCTOBER 3RD 2006, LYNN ROWLAND FROM THE REGISTRY IN BIRKENHEAD WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER HEADED “21 LIME GROVE, SEAFORTH:
“In order for us to deal with your query, could you please provide us with the reference on the letter sent to you by the Coventry Land Registry. This will enable us to call up any previous correspondence.”
ON OCTOBER 12TH 2006 MR GIBSON, SEFTON’S PRINCIPLE LEGAL ASSISTANT WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER HEADED “REFUSAL NOTICE (VEXATIOUS REPEATED REQUESTS).”: [CAPITALISATION ADDED)
“Further to your numerous letters regarding YOUR NIB WALL and the title to your property AND ADJOINING PROPERTY. I write to inform you that your request for information will not be processed. I have decided that your request is vexatious and repeated requests have been responded to over the years…the reason I have concluded your request is vexatious and that repeated requests have been received and responded to is that the council has spent hundreds of man hours dealing with your requests REGARDING YOUR PROPERTY 17 LIME GROVE, and the INSURANCE CLAIM WHICH YOU ALLEGE WAS NOT MADE.”
ON OCTOBER 17TH 2006, SALLY WALKER, PERSONAL ASSISTANT, FROM THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMANS OFFICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE O6/100048/SPC/sw:
“Please note you complaint has been allocated the above new reference number…we have at the moment more complaints than we can give our investigators but will allocate your complaint as soon as we can…we will contact you again when your complaint has been allocated…please note we may copy to the council any papers you have sent us about your complaint. This is to inform the Council that your complaint has been brought to our attention
ON OCTOBER 18TH 2006, CATHY HOWKINS, CASEWORKER AND ADVICE OFFICER FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLOWING TO ME, REGARDING MY LETTER TO SEFTON COUNCIL DATED JULY 5TH 2006, USING THE RFERENCE END0124895 STATING: (CAPITALISATION ADDED):
“Your letter refers to a request for assessment (REFERENCE: 03-36599/06/AD) THAT YOU SUBMITTED TO THIS OFFICE A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO WHICH FOCUSED ON THE PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA BY SEFTON MBC. WE WERE UNABLE TO TAKE ACTION IN RESPECT OF YOUR REQUEST FOR ASSESSMENT AS WE CONCLUDED THAT THE INFORMATION IN QUESTION DID NOT FALL UNDER THE SCOPE OF THE DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998. WE REACHED THIS DECISION BECAUSE WE WERE OF THE OPINION THAT THE INFORMATION THAT THE COUNCIL DID NOT PROVIDE TO YOU DID NOT FORM PART OF A RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM. YOU HAVE ASKED US TO PROVIDED FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE INFORMATION THAT IS NOT HELD UNDER A RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM. I can only repeat the Information that MR DAMMS, the caseworker who completed the assessment, provided to you. During the course of our investigations, SEFTON MBC CONFIRMED THAT THE ‘MISSING DOCUMENTATION (THE INFORMATION THAT WAS NOT PROVIDED TO YOU IN RESPONSE TO YOUR DATA SUBJECT ACCCESS REQUEST) WAS NOT HELD IN A RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM…we can only confirm that it is OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ‘MISSING’ DOCUMENTS WERE NOT HELD IN A RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM.”
ON OCTOBER 23RD 2006 MERSEYSIDE POLICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME HEADED “COMPLAINT AGAINST THE POLICE.:
“It is my role on behalf of the Chief Superintendent…to conduct investigations into such matters…I would be grateful if you would contact me…in order to arrange a suitable appointment to discuss the matter in detail,”
ON OCTOBER 24TH 2006 I FILED AND SERVED A LETTER I HAD WRITTEN TO MERSEYSIDE POLICE ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION OF WHICH “COMPLAINT AGAINST THE POLICE” THEY REFERRED TO.
ON OCTOBER 25TH 2006, PATRICK BROUGH, THE LAND REGISTRAR AT BIRKENHEAD WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER HEADED “21 LIME GROVE.” (CAPITALISATION ADDED):
“We have on file a full copy of the comprehensive letter written to you on 4 August by Mrs D M Weaver, the Land Registry at our Coventry office. As Mrs Weaver made clear in the final paragraph of that letter, it contained Land Registries definitive response on the issues you had raised in respect of titles LA45086, LA45343 and MS351603. I do not therefore propose to enter into any further correspondence regarding the matter. It would NOT in any event be appropriate for the Land Registry to comment on QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE ASKED IN CORRESPONDENCE WITH SEFTON BOROUGH COUNCIL AND WHICH, THEY HAVE, FOR REASONS STATED IN THEIR RECENT LETTER TO YOU, REFUSED TO ANSWER.”
ON NOVEMBER 2ND 2006, CATHY HOWKINS FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER EFERENCE ENO124895.”:
“I refer to your letter of 30 October…the Information Commission’s Office conducted an assessment in respect of Sefton Council following a complaint that you submitted to us in 2003. However, in the course of our investigations we were not supplied with any of your personal data. We based our of our assessment on the correspondence that both you and Sefton provided to us in the course of our investigation. However, Sefton Council never provided us with any of the documents that you had requested from them…you have enclosed a print out of your council tax account with your letter. You have asked us to confirm whether this document will not be personal data…because it is not part of a relevant filing system…it appears that the council holds your council tax records on computer. For the purpose of the DPA this information is likely to be your personal data and as such you have a right of access to this data…if the Council held a paper copy of this information at the time of your request, and this document was not held in a relevant filing system, you would not have been entitled to a copy of this information under the DPA.”
ON NOVEMBER 10TH 2006 I RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING FROM MERSEYSIDE POLICE under the reference TK/ih/6VDDW ACKNOWLEDGEING MY LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 9TH 2006:
“I have forwarded your letter to Chief Superintendent XXXX, Area Commander for Sefton…Constable xxxx will reply to you directly.”
ON NOVEMBER 9TH 2006, CATHY HOWKINS FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE ENO124895.” IN ANSWER TO MY LETTTER OF NOVEMBER 6TH 2006 COPIED TO (CAPITALIATION ADDED):
LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT
SEFTON COUNCILS LEGAL DEPARTMENT
CHIEF CONSTABLE MERSEYSIDE POLICE
BOOTLE MAGISTRATES COURT
“ The advice that we provided to Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council following the assessment we conducted IN 2004 regarding the COMPLAINT that you submitted to our office about Sefton Council. The outcome of OUR ASSESSMENT was explained to you when we concluded our investigation…I can confirm that the Freedom of Information Act does not provided an individual with the right to have INACCURATE DATA amended…I can confirm that we have now closed this case and that the large volume of correspondence that you have enclosed with your last letter will be HELD ON FILE for information only…we will be in touch with you shortly regarding the subject access request that you made to this office on 21 October 2006.”
ON NOVEMBER 16th 2006, FAYE SPENCER, SENIOR CASEWORK AND ADVICE MANAGER FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER EFERENCE FOII/486SAR/310.” (CAPITALISATION ADDED):
“You first of all asked us for copies of all the correspondence and, if any, faxes emails and telephone conversations regarding [your] REQUESTS to the Commission…given that your letter of 21 October 2006 was only concerned with…case reference 03/36599/06…we have supplied you with the communications WE EXCHANGED WITH SEFTON COUNCIL in relation to 03/36599/06.”
03/36599/06 WAS A “REQUEST” REGARDING THE INFORMATION WITHHELD BY SEFTON COUNCIL DATED BETWEEN JANUARY 1ST AND DECEMBER 31ST 1994 WHICH, HAD NO CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER DATA OF FORGED MAPPING.
ON NOVEMBER 24TH 2006 I RECEIVED TWO ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS FROM THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN DATED NOVEMBER 22ND 2006, THE FIRST REFERENCED 06/C/10048.SPC3: THE SECOND REFERENCED 06/C/10048/RA.
ON NOVEMBER 22ND 2006, CATHY HOWKINS FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER EFERENCE ENO124895.”:
“It would appear that you are in dispute with the council over whether you owe, or have ever owed, council tax payments…it is not the role of the Information Commissioners Office to assess whether or not an individual is liable for council tax payments and we have neither the resources or expertise to do so…the amount of money that you owe in council taxes has been considered by the Magistrates Court and you have been issued with two liability orders. The Information Commissioner’s Office would be unable to overturn a decision that has been made by the courts…you have indicated that you have made a subject access request to access your computer records, but that you have ‘been unable to obtain them’…you could consider a complaint if you felt the council had not responded to your request in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. However, you would need to provide us with a copy of your request letter …and any other correspondence from the council relating to your request…it would appear that the Local Government Ombudsman is better placed to consider your complaint about whether the council has correctly assessed your council tax liability.”
ON NOVEMBER 24TH 2006 I SENT MS HOWKINS THE INFORMATION SHE HAD REQUESTED AND COPIED IT TO:
LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT FOA JUDGE FITZGERALD AND HH JUDGE STEWART
BOOTLE MAGISTRATES COURT
THE CHIEF CONSTABLE MERSEYSIDE POLICE
MR SPARROW AS THE ipcc
MS SEEKS LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN
ON NOVEMBER 29TH 2006, CATHY HOWKINS FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE ENO124895.”:
“It would appear that you have pursued the matter through the courts…before we can take any action in respect of your complaint to this office we need you to provide us with details of the courts response to your claim against the council…we would be grateful if you could provide details of the outcome of your court case, including copies of any correspondence that you have received from the court in respect of this matter. Once we have received this additional information from you we will consider how best to progress your complaint.”
ON DECEMBER 4TH 2006 I WROTE AGAIN TO THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER ENCLOSING 22 ITEMS OF EVIDENCE REGARDING THE FALSE LAND RECORDS AND FORGED MAPPING AND COPIER TO:
LORD FALCONER
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN
And with part of the evidence to:
LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT FAO HIS HONOUR JUDGE MACKAY
CHIEF CONSTABLE MERSEYSIDE POLICE
ipcc
THE LAW SOCIETY
LEGAL DIRECTOR SEFTON COUNCIL
MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION
CEO HALIFAX BUILDING SOCIETY
THE HOUSING CORPORATION
ON DECEMBER 5TH 2006, TED POWELL, RESEARCH ASSISTANT TO THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:
“Thank you for your letter to John Prescott MP to which I am replying on his behalf…the matters you have raised are the responsibility of the Department of Communities and Local Government. I have therefore passed your correspondence to that Department so that your concerns may be addressed in more detail.”
ON DECEMBER 8TH 2006 THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN ACKNOWLEDGED MY CORRESPONCE UNDER 06/C/10048/SPC3.
ON DECEMBER 14TH 2006 I WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO LORD FALCONER, ENCLOSING SEVENTY FOUR PAGES OF EVIDENCE, AND COPIED TO:
THE LAW SOCIETY
SEFTON COUNCILS LEGAL DIRECTOR
MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION
“The court and the Government appear not to be able to deal with the deceit which over the years have escalated to the present state, absorbing tens of thousands of pounds of public money, and occurred seemingly centered on the unlawful sale of land by Sefton Council to Maritime housing Association in 1993/4. It is quite clear that some parties in this matter should be sent to prison rather than the threat of prison, loss of my home and massive unfounded costs and fallacious liability orders for Council Tax, obtained by perjury, being used against myself in full view of the authorities…the matter now needs to go to the Court of Human Rights as a matter of great urgency and not be passed around like a bad smell. Please note it is the duty of senior members of the Government to keep the courts independent and not let them become subverted from within, or from without.”
ON 13TH DECEMBER MERSEYSIDE POLICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REFERENCED Misc AND HEADED “COMPLAINT ABOUT THE POLICE”:
“I refer to the above matter in relation to your on-going issues and various correspondences…I have reviewed the matter once again and would refer you to the letter sent to you by D/I xxxv.”
THE ENCLOSED LETTER DATED DECEMBER 1ST 2005 HEADED “LETTERS OF COMPLAINT” STATED:
“I have indicated on several occasions there are no criminal offences committed by any party against you or your property in relation to your claim for damages. This is a civil matter between yourself and other parties. The allegation of perjury against members of staff of Sefton Council was investigated and there were no offences committed. As indicated by Superintendent xxxx in his letter to you we are not prepared to communicate with you any further. You should refer all of your future correspondence to those parties you hold responsible for damage.”
ON DECEMBER 19TH 2006, NATALIE JADE HOLE, CUSTOMER LIASON UNIT, FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:
“Thank you for your letter of 7 December addressed to the Rt Hon Ruth Kelly MP regarding false land records. The Department of Local Government does not have responsibility for the issue you have raised. Your letter has therefore been sent to the Department for Constitutional affairs.”
ON December 21st 2006, CATHY HOWKINS FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER EFERENCE ENO124895.”:
“Thank you for your letter of 5 December 2006 in response to my request of 29 November 2006…you are seeking access to your council tax records …we will only consider whether or not the council responded to your subject access request of 15 November 2005 in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998…I have therefore written to the council to ask it to confirm whether it has provided you with the information that you requested. If the council has not provided you with this data, I have asked it to confirm whether it will now do so, if the council does not intend to provide you with the information that you have requested, I have asked it to clarify the exemption within the Act upon which it is relying to withhold this data.”
ON JANUARY 10TH 2007, MR DANNY O’ SULLIVAN, OF HMSC’S CUSTOMER SERVICES UNIT, WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE CSU/20492:
“Thank you for your letter of 14 December 2006 addressed to the Department for Constitutional Affairs. We will send you a reply by 30 January 2007…if we decide your letter is best answered by another office, we will write and tell you where your letter has been transferred.”
ON JANUARY 11TH 2007 I WROTE TO THE HOME SECRETARY, JOHN REID REGARDING THE REFUSAL OF MERSEYSIDE POLICE TO ACCEPT EVIDENCE OF FORGED TITLE MAPS BY THE LAND REGISTRY.
ON JANUARY 11TH 2007, BELINDA DAWKINS, OF THE LAND REGISTRIES CUSTOMER SERVICE TEAM IN LONDON WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE CSG 38 – 07 IN RESPONSE TO “COPY LETTERS AND DOCUMENTS” SENT TO THE LAND REGISTRY:
“An inspection of our system indicates that 19 Lime Grove is not registered therefore we would not have any documents relating to the property on our files.”
ME ON JANUARY 15TH 2007 WITH REGARD TO FURTHER COPY CORRESPONDENCE AND A ‘FEEDBACK FORM’ MERSEYSIDE POLICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO UNDER REFERENCE YV000098:
“Your letter will be forwarded to the Area Commander at Sefton for his attention. You should receive a response within 21 days.”
ON JANUARY 17TH 2007, JEREMY DONALDSON, HEAD OF THE LAND REGISTRY AGENCY CASE REVIEW TEAM WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME, ON BEHALF OF PETER COLLIS, CHIEF REGISTRAR, IN RESPONSE TO MY LETTER OF JANUARY 12TH TO MS DOWKIN IN A LETTER HEADED “TITLE NUMBER MS361603 LAND AT KEPLER STREET AND MAPLE CLOSE, SEAFORTH” UNDER REFERENCE ACRT/700/06/118/JRD”
“I refer you to the letter dated 4 August 2006 from Mrs Weaver…I have nothing to add to what Mrs Weaver said.”
ON JANUARY 26TH 2007 KERRRY LOCK, OF THE HOME OFFICE DIRECT COMMUNICATIONS UNIT WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME ON BEHALF OF JOHN REID UNDER REFERENCE T1944/7:
“Thank you for your letter…regarding your wish to formally report a crime to the police…the Chief Constable of Merseyside Police is responsible for the day to day operational management of the force and not the Home Secretary…Ministers do not have the authority to intervene in operational matters. If you wish to make a complaint…contact their Professional Standards department…alternatively you can make your complaint through the Merseyside Police Authority…or the …ipcc.”
ON JANUARY 29TH 2007, DINESH BHATT,FROM THE CUSTOMER SERVICES UNIT OF HMCS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER REFERENCED CSU/20492:
“We are the third tier in Her Majesty’s Court Service…we investigate complaints concerning the administration of HMCS. We cannot investigate complaints concerning judicial fraud…I note that you have already reported the matter of fraud to Merseyside Police.”
ON FEBRUARY 1ST 2007, LEIGH TAPPIN, OF THE MINISTERIAL CORRESPONDENCE UNIT OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER HEADED “TRANSFER LETTER” UNDER REFERENCE 83360:
“The issue raised is outside of the remit of this department. Consequently, I have forwarded your letter to the HM Land Registry, so that they can consider its contents.”
ON FEBRUARY1ST 2006, ANGELA ELLISON FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE ENDO124895.:
“We have now received a response from the council’s Data Protection Officer. He states that the Revenue Manager has indicated that your request was answered at the time…the Revenue Manager has also stated that the council hold hard copies of the documents if required and, in view of this…I shall ask for them to be copied to you again.”
ON FEBRUARY 2ND 2007 I WROTE TO THE CHIEF CONSABLE OF MERSEYSIDE POLICE REGARDING THE FORGED MAPPING USED IN THE SALE OF THE LAND AT KEPLER STREET / MAPLE CLOSE, SEAFORTH AND COPIED TO:
JOHN REID, HOME SECRETARY
LORD FALCONER
MERSEYSIDE POLICE PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS
ipcc
LEGAL DEPARTMENT SEFTON COUNCIL
MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION
THE LAW SOCIETY
ON FEBRUARY 6TH 2007 MERSEYSIDE POLICE WROTE TO ME IN A LETTER REFERENCED SI/lh6VDDW THANKING ME FOR MY “COMPLAINT” OF FEBRUARY 2ND 2007 AND STATING:
“I have forwarded your letter to Chief Superintendent xxxx, Area Commander for the Sefton area, as he is the officer who has been dealing with your investigation.”
ON FEBRUARY 16TH 2006, ANGELA ELLISON FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE ENDO124895.”:
“There is no evidence that the Council have concealed records.”
ON FEBRUARY 16TH 2007, MRS S HACKNEY, SECRETARY, WROTE TO ME FROM THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMANS OFFICE UNDER THE REFERENCE 006/C/10048/CSO/SH STATING:
“Your complaint has now been allocated to Mr Oxley.”
ON FEBRUARY 16TH 2007, MR OXLEY A LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMANS INVESTIGATOR WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER THE REFERENCE 06/C/10048/CSO STATING. (CAPITALISATION ADDED):
“I RECALL that you submitted a complaint about the issue of YOUR NIB WALL to the Ombudsman IN 1995…I have considered what you have submitted with your current complaint and it is my view that this concerns basically THE SAME ISSUE…I understand that the Police…are no longer prepared to communicate further with you on this matter…I can see no benefit in investigating your complaint [because] this is a PRIVATE MATTER and not one of public administration.”
ON FEBRUARY 27TH 2007, SUSAN HOLLERAN WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME FROM THE ROYAL COURT OF JUSTICE UNDER REFERENCE 0375/02/07 REGARDING A LETTER I HAD WRITTEN TO THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE:
“The contents of your letter concerning Maritime Housing Association have been noted…if you wish to take the matter further you may like to consider seeking legal advice. I am afraid that this office nor the Lord Chief Justice is in a position to offer such advice.”
ON FEBRUARY 28TH 2007, ANGELA ELLISON FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME in answer to a letter to her dated February 28th 2007 UNDER REFERENCE ENDO124895.”:
“There is nothing further that I can add to my previous comments.”
ON MARCH 12TH 2007, MR OXLEY A LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMANS INVESTIGATOR WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER THE REFERENCE 06/C/10048/CSO REGARDING MY ALLEGED COMPLAINT DATED 1995, AND THE LIABILITY ORDERS OBTAINED BY SEFTON FOR NONE EXISTENT COUNCIL TAX LIABILITIES, STATING. (CAPITALISATION ADDED):
“You have asked in your latest letter for RECORD OF YOUR COMPLAINT which you say was not made at that time because the OWNERSHIP of the nib wall was not at that time established…there are NO RECORDS of the decision on your compliant…are RECORDS of the complaint numbers your complaints…these are 95/C/04896…I DO RECALL the complaint about the OWNERSHIP of the nib wall…I informed you that YOU had made complaint on this subject AT THAT TIME…writing to you. There was no decision on the OWNERSHIP of THE WALL as that was NOT RELEVANT, what WAS relevant was that this was A PRIVATE MATTER between you and the Council OR the housing association…I note that you complained that the council officers COMMITTED PERJURY…and that you complained about this CRIMINAL OFFENCE to Merseyside Police. You also challenged the competency of the Magistrates Court and APPEALED TO THE CROWN COURT which was unable to help you…I am sending a copy of this letter and the letter of February 19th to the Council’s Chief Executive.”
THERE WAS NO APPEAL TO THE CROWN COURT.
ON MARCH 13TH 2007, BELINDA DAWKINS, OF THE LAND REGISTRIES CUSTOMER SERVICE TEAM IN LONDON WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING TITLE MS 351603 UNDER REFERENCE CSG 38 – 07 ON BEHALF OF PETER COLLIS, HEAD REGISTRAR, IN RESPONSE TO A LETTER SENT TO THE LAND REGISTRY ON MARCH 8TH 2007. (CAPITALISATION ADDED):
“ON THE FIRST POINT I can confirn that the Land Registry was supplied with the August 1994 version of Ordnance Survey map OS SJ3396NW which CORRESPONDED with title MS351603 – 21 Lime Grove…on the second point…if you want a response…please contact the appropriate land registry office which deals with your area.”
ON MARCH 12TH 2007, MS ANNE SEEEKS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMANS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER THE REFERENCE 06/C/10048/CSO REGARDING A LETTER DATED MARCH 16TH 2007:
“I have asked Mr Corney, an Assistant Ombudsman to review the file on your complaint on my behalf. Mr Corney does not manage Mr Oxley and has not previously been involved with your complaint. He will complete the review and write to you as quickly as possible. His decision will be final.”
ON MARCH 22ND I WROTE A COMPLAINT TO MS SEEKS REGARDING MR OXLEY HEADED “MALICIOUS MIS-STATEMENT – BREACH OF DUTY”, POINTING OUT TO HER THERE WAS NO COMPLAINT BY ME TO THE OMBUDSMAN IN 1995 REFERENCED 95/C/03824.”
ON MARCH 22ND 2007, MR CORNEY, ASSISTANT OMBUDSMAN WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE 06/C/10048/RJC/jm. (CAPITALISATION ADDED):
“ I have read the PAPERS and see nothing to suggest that the decision was wrong, the only point I would accept is that complaint 95/c/03824 WAS NOT MADE IN 1995, as it was IN FACT received in this office on 10 January 1996…Mr Oxley is also quite correct…about the LIABILITY ORDER for NONE payment of Council Tax…there is no way in which the Ombudsman can overturn the decision of a Magistrates Court, which has been REINFORCED IN TURN BY THE CROWN COURT. ”
ON MARCH 26TH 2007, LEIGH TAPPIN, OF THE MINISTERIAL CORRESPONDENCE UNIT OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER HEADED “TRANSFER LETTER” UNDER REFERENCE 154306:
“Thank you for your letter dated 16/3/07 addressed to Lord Falconer…the issue raised is outside the remit of this department. Consequently, I have forwarded your letter to the DCLG.”
ON MARCH 27TH 2007, MR PATRICK BROUGH THE REGISTRAR AT BIRKENHEAD WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME, WITH REGARD TO A LETTER AND DOCUMENTS DATED MARCH 20TH 2007, UNDER THE REFERENCE CL145/03. (CAPITALISATION ADDED):
“I have nothing to add to the COMPREHENSIVE INFORMATION which Mrs Weaver gave you except to say…title MS351603 was FIRST registered on 21 January 1994 and not on 25 September as YOU SUGGEST.”
ON MAY 4TH 2007, KELLY TOMLIN, OF HMSC’S CUSTOMER SERVICES UNIT, WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE CSU/20492:
““Thank you for your letter of 14 April 2007 addressed to Lord Falconer…if we decide your letter is best answered by another office, we will write and tell you where your letter has been transferred.”
On May 8TH 2007, ANNE SEEKS, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME, REGARDING A LETTER DATED APRIL 23RD 2007, UNDER REFERENCE 06/10048/AS/CRB and changing the date for the 1995, 1996 complaint C/04896 to 1999:
“Both Mr Oxley and Mr Corney have explained why your complaint will not be investigated. Their decisions are correct…I have to tell you that the file relating to complaint 99/C/04896 was destroyed some time ago and I cannot therefore comply with your request.”
ON MAY 14TH 2007, SUSAN HOLLERAN FROM THE JUDICIAL OFFICE OF THE ROYAL COURT OF JUSTICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING EVIDENCE I HAD SENT TO THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OVER THE “LAST MONTHS” REFERENCED 0160/05/07. CAPITALISATION ADDED):
“The contents of those letters concerning damage to YOUR WALL have been noted……if you wish to take the matter further you may like to consider seeking legal advice. I am afraid that this office nor the Lord Chief Justice is in a position to offer such advice.”
ON MAY 18TH 2007 PAULA MULLIN OF HMCS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER HEADED ”CLAIM NUMBERS 5LV53314 & 6L50690 UNDER REFERENCE CSU21318 AND, REGARDING “LETTERS OF 14 APRIL, ADDRESSED TO LORD FALCONER. LORD GOLDSMITH & LORD PHILLIPS WHICH HAD BEEN PASSED TO HMCS BECAUSE:
“This office is responsible for dealing with all correspondence in relation to the administration within the courts in England and Wales.”
ON MAY 31ST 2007, KAREN ROUSE, OF THE HOME OFFICE DIRECT COMMUNICATIONS UNIT WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING MY LETTER OF MAY 31ST 2007:
“The matters raised in your letter are now the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice. Your letter has therefore been transferred to the new Ministry of Justice.”
ON MAY 31ST 2007, SARAH MASTERSON, OF THE HOME OFFICE DIRECT COMMUNICATIONS UNIT WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE T16299/7 REGARDING “YOUR POLICE COMPLAINT.”:
“I can see from your letter that you have raised a complaint with the Chief Constable and the…IPCC and are not satisfied with the response you have received…the IPCC is an independent body and therefore, if you are not satisfied with their investigation, you will need to seek independent legal advice.”
ON JUNE 12TH 2007 I WROTE A ‘ROUND ROBIN’ LETTER REGARDING THE FALLACIOIUS INSURANCE CLAIMS W215732 AKA RR98XN AKA AT01939, TO:
LORD FALCONER
LORD PHILLIPS
THE HOME SECRETARY
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN
THE INFORMATION COMMISSION
THE LAW SOCIETY
ON JUNE 26TH 2007, HIESH DARJEE, FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER REFERENCED 070626/J24 – 54/018673/07”
“Thank you for your letter concerning council tax. As the issues you have raised is the responsibility of this Department…I have been asked to reply…I am afraid that the administration and collection of council tax is the responsibility of the local authority and it would not be appropriate for ministers or officials from this Department to intervene in individual cases between a local authority and its taxpayers.”
On June 27th 2007, BERNARD McNALLY FROM THE CUSTOMER SERVICES TEAM OF THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE INFO166270:
“Thank you for your “round robin letter” regarding Sefton Borough council. The information you have provided will be kept on our files for information only.”
ON JUNE 28TH 2007, H JARMAN FROM THE CASE RECEPTION UNIT OF THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE INFO166461:
“Thank you for your correspondence received at this office on 14th June 2007 regarding your information request to Sefton MBC. The information you have provided will be kept on our files for information only.”
ON JULY 9TH 2009 LANDSEARCH LIMITED EMAILED ME CONFIRMING THEIR CONTRACT WITH ME TO SUPPLY ME WITH TITLES LA 45086, LA 45343 AND TITLE MS351603.
JUST OVER A YEAR SINCE MY LETTER TO JOHN PRESCOTT REGARDING THE FORGED MAPPING, MARY ROSE MULLINER,LAWYER FROM THE LAND REGISTRY, TELFORD, WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER HEADED “TITLE NUMBER LA45086.”:
“The point made by you in your letter of 13 June 2007 as to the erasure of the Crown copyright date. The 1977 title plan for LA43086 is based on more than one edition of the Ordnance Survey. The first sheet within which former LA45086 is to be found, is based on a 1966 edition, and the second and third sheets, within which second sheet your property is found, is based on a 1970 edition. Where more than one edition is being used it would be inappropriate to refer a crown copyright date.”
Yours sincerely,
fred robinson
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now